OAKLAND -- A federal judge said Thursday that there will be a trial in an anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use of college athletes' names and likenesses, a case that could alter what major-college football and men's basketball players can receive in exchange for participating in their sports.

The trial has been set to begin June 9 and is scheduled to last 19 trial days.

The NCAA and a group of former college athletes led by UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon both had asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to decide the case in their favor without a trial.

Wilken did not issue a specific ruling Thursday, but she said near the conclusion of a more than 2 ½-hour hearing here "the whole case is not going away on summary judgment."

She later established the trial date and said she would soon issue a written decision on the summary judgment requests – a ruling that is likely to have a significant impact on the specific issues that the sides will argue.

She also appeared to be willing to go along with a verbal agreement Thursday by each side's lead attorney that the trial could simultaneously deal with two separate issues. There would be the plaintiffs' class-action request for an injunction from the judge that would bar the NCAA from limiting what Division I men's basketball players and Bowl Subdivision football players can receive for playing, although the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, indicated during the hearing that his side would be fine with an injunction that allowed any additional benefits to be set aside until after athletes have completed their eligibility. There also would be individual named plaintiffs seeking a jury verdict -- and damages – related to alleged misuse of the names and likenesses in the past. However, this arrangement was not been formalized.

Wilken did say she is "not inclined" the grant the plaintiffs' request that she reconsider her refusal to grant class-action status to athletes seeking damages for past use of their names and likeness in TV broadcasts – damages that could have been in the billions of dollars.

Still, Hausfeld was pleased to see 5-year-old case moved to the verge of finally being tried.

"The bottom line for the case is that the NCAA and collegiate sports will never be looked at the same today as it was before this case," Hausfeld said.

The NCAA has been arguing that limiting college athletes to receiving tuition, fees, room, board and books in exchange for playing "is lawful presumptively," Hausfeld added. "We're done with that. There's no presumptions. This court is saying if you go to trial, you're going to have to prove it."

There is still a prospect that the case could be settled, and at one point during the hearing, Wilken told the sides: "If you want to compromise, I'm all for it – because I won't be compromising."

The NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, declined to comment after the hearing. The association issued a statement from him that said: "We believe strongly in the merits of our case and will continue to defend the interests of the hundreds of thousands of student-athletes not recognized by the plaintiffs. For them and for all student-athletes, the current model of college sports provides opportunities for success during college and beyond. We believe the arguments presented show that the plaintiffs' claims are not supported by the facts or the law."

During the course of Thursday's hearing, Wilken closely questioned the NCAA's lead outside attorney, Glenn Pomerantz, about the association's contention that the First Amendment and various case law protect live television broadcasts of sports events from claims related to improper use of the participants' names, images and likenesses. She also asked Pomerantz about the various ways in which the NCAA says its limits on athlete compensation promote competition among its Division I schools and, thus, justify the existence of the restraints.

The First Amendment question revolves, in part, around the NCAA's argument that college sports events are of such great public and news interest that athletes cannot demand that they be compensated for appearing in TV broadcasts of them. But Wilken asked at one point: "If the public is so interested, why can only CBS show" certain games? Pomerantz said, in part, the law allows the NCAA, a school or a conference to grant of an exclusive "right of access" to a specific broadcaster without losing the First Amendment protection.

Regarding the NCAA's contention that the limits help with on-field competitive balance among the schools, Wilken asked: "Isn't there a less restrictive alternative? Wouldn't addressing coaches salaries or the money spent of stadiums" have the same effect? She also asked whether the NCAA could impose different revenue sharing rules to help schools or particular sports with their funding.

Pomerantz countered that the NCAA "is not saying we have perfect competitive balance" now, but that if limits on athlete compensation are removed, it would "make it a lot worse" because schools with greater financial resources would be in an even more advantageous position to attract top athletes.

Wilken also said she had "problems" with the NCAA's contention that the limits on compensation promotes athletics' integration with schools' academic environment.

This is likely to be a significant point of contention for the plaintiffs if there is a trial.

"Up to this point, the NCAA has essentially camouflaged its restraint and its exploitation of athletes by continually, just talismanically incanting the principal of amateurism," Hausfeld said after the hearing. "They have now had to identify all of the alleged pro-competitive justifications they have with respect to imposing a restraint on the recruitment of athletes and then of the ability of athletes to participate in a market for the sale of their NIL rights. That also has raised the fundamental perception of what the NCAA is – whether it is able to cloak itself under the umbrella of an academic institution that is designed to promote the educational careers of these athletes or really is it profit maximizing seeking to extract the greatest commercial value from the participation of the athletes."

However, Hausfeld also faced some difficult questions during Thursday's hearing. Wilken indicated that she had been unclear on the notion that the plaintiffs were seeking a system under which football and men's basketball players might receive significant new compensation during their collegiate playing careers, as opposed to having funds or other benefits set aside for their use after they were done with college sports – an idea proposed in an early version of the plaintiffs' complaint documents. Hausfeld ended up saying his side would be fine with an injunction that entitled benefits to be put aside.